Serge E. Hallyn wrote: > Quoting Pavel Emelyanov (xemul@xxxxxxxxxx): >> Dave Hansen wrote: >>> On Tue, 2008-01-15 at 11:25 +0300, Pavel Emelyanov wrote: >>>> Hmm. I have an idea how to make this w/o a new system call. This might >>>> look wierd, but. Why not stopple the last bit with a CLONE_NEWCLONE and >>>> consider the parent_tidptr/child_tidptr in this case as the pointer to >>>> an array of extra arguments/flargs? >>> I guess that does keep us from having to add an _actual_ system call. >> Exactly! > > I'll be honest, while it's a really neat idea, in terms of code actually > going into tree I far far prefer a real new syscall. well, hijacking child_tidptr and adding a new syscall will probably look the same internally. so if it ends up that hijacking child_tidptr is not acceptable, we won't have much work to plug it in a new syscall. > But it sounds like I'm the only one so I'll just mention it once and > then bite my tongue :) hold on. this patch has not been sent on lkml@ but it's worth a try :) C. _______________________________________________ Containers mailing list Containers@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx https://lists.linux-foundation.org/mailman/listinfo/containers
